Stange how lots of people don't like 6x7. 6x7 is 56mm x ~70mm on most cameras, ie. 1.25:1 (and not 1.16:1 as stated in the poll). Give or take 1-2mm in width depending on system it's the same dimensions as 5x4, 8x10, 11x14 (close), 16x20, 20x24....
(And 6x17 is 56mm x 168mm: 3:1).

Soooo , I've read all the posts , and the consensus appears that the most unloved format is 6x7 . Does anybody actually use an enlarger ? What you see in the 6x7 viewfinder can be printed in it's entirety as you saw it , on the most widely available paper . Peter

It is ironic how the "perfect format" is rather unloved. And 2:3 gets different perceptions in 35mm and 6x9 (MF).

I shoot 2:3 by the way of 35mm and 6x9. 1:1 rarely through a Polaroid SX70 and 4:3 with the cellphone and m43 cameras.

An observation, actual 6x7 isn't the same ratio as 4x5 and 8x10?

4:3 is quite bearable to me and unknowingly use it quite a lot. m43 and my phones shoot at this ratio natively. I don't carry negative perceptions from the academic format and TV as I grew as they were phasing out.

1:1 is rather challenging compositionally as a native format in my scant use of it.

2:3 is a bit neither here or there. Frankly, I'd either wish it'd be slightly squarer (Portraits) or longer (Landscape). And it requires cropping for a standard paper size. Although 20x30cm is easily available, not as "classic", finding the traditional 8x10" size quite balanced.

Cropping my cellphone shots I like to play with during commuting get corpped to any suitable to composition aspect ratio. Leaning towards 4:5 rather often, despite never having used a camera on this aspect ratio.

Soooo , I've read all the posts , and the consensus appears that the most unloved format is 6x7 . Does anybody actually use an enlarger ? What you see in the 6x7 viewfinder can be printed in it's entirety as you saw it , on the most widely available paper . Peter

Exactly. 6x7 format is actually 4x5 on the negative, so it works beautifully when you wet print.

6x6 is better if you are shooting and projecting slides. 6x7 projectors and mounts are really hard to find and expensive.

Stange how lots of people don't like 6x7. 6x7 is 56mm x ~70mm on most cameras, ie. 1.25:1 (and not 1.16:1 as stated in the poll). Give or take 1-2mm in width depending on system it's the same dimensions as 5x4, 8x10, 11x14 (close), 16x20, 20x24....
(And 6x17 is 56mm x 168mm: 3:1).

As stated in the poll, just nominal dimensions, since medium format sizes are usually narrower and shorter than advertised. Plus they are all over the place. My Horseman-based 6x12 backs are 56x113 (2:1); a Linhof is 55x120, which is more like 2.2:1.

I think one could reasonably suggest that 8x10 = 4x5 is the most “classic” proportion, a standard in photography. And in this poll, so far, it shares a very modest 13% disfavor with four other formats. By contrast, the most disliked is 6x7 with 42% thinking it’s the pits! This is very curious, since 6x7 has the same 1.25:1 proportions as 4x5.

The poll listing shows 6x7 as 1.16:1 (70/60=1.16) while the actual framesize is 56mm x 70mm + /- a couple mm variation among different camera brands. And 70mm / 56mm = 1.25:1, same as 4x5 and 8x10.

Because of the way 56 x 70 is commonly rounded to 6x7 in our terminology, it deceptively seems more nearly square than it really is. We could call it 5.6x7 but that’s awkward. Perception and deception!

Not at the only decent 6x7 format, namely, Linhof 56x72, which at 3x is whole plate.

Cheers,

R.

By my calculation you would lose roughly a quarter inch of the photo on one side of a sheet of 8x10 paper with that Linhof negative size. That's still much better than all the other formats, apart from sheet film, isn't it?

Of these, the 4:5 proportion of 6x7cm/4x5/8x10 feels the most awkward to me in use, though I'm far from "loathing" it. If I had my druthers, the sheet film formats that survived in mainstream use would have been 3.25x4.25, 6.5x8.5 and 7x11 instead of 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. But really, any format can be used to make satisfying pictures. If I were stuck with only one I'd happily use it, whatever it was.

Please send me all your loathed 6x7 cameras and leneses. I already have three systems in this beloved format and could use more. I will find some room on the shelf for them somewhere. Y'all are spoiled and don't remember the days when a Pentax 67 was the least expensive, new, high quality, medium format camera on the market. And oh the jump in quality! 6x7 is for those who printed 11x14. You could also crop to a square either vertically or horizontally. .. Great stuff.

Ahhhh. Horses for courses. I love all formats. Seriously. I see differently with each of them. Such a cheap way to change your perception. Cheaper than formal education by a long shot!

Linhof 6x7 is close to 1:1.3, rather longer than the 1:1.25 of 5x4/10x8, and therefore (to me) better looking. But then, I prefer whole plate too: 6.5 x 8.5 inches. Which, as I say, is almost exactly 3x 56x72mm...

I've never really had an irrational dislike of any particular format. However, I never fully got along with the digital 4/3 (micro or standard) format. I loved the cameras but I kept cropping to 3:2 aspect ratio due to so many years seeing within a 35mm format framing.

I think one could reasonably suggest that 8x10 = 4x5 is the most “classic” proportion, a standard in photography. And in this poll, so far, it shares a very modest 13% disfavor with four other formats. By contrast, the most disliked is 6x7 with 42% thinking it’s the pits! This is very curious, since 6x7 has the same 1.25:1 proportions as 4x5.

The poll listing shows 6x7 as 1.16:1 (70/60=1.16) while the actual framesize is 56mm x 70mm + /- a couple mm variation among different camera brands. And 70mm / 56mm = 1.25:1, same as 4x5 and 8x10.

Because of the way 56 x 70 is commonly rounded to 6x7 in our terminology, it deceptively seems more nearly square than it really is. We could call it 5.6x7 but that’s awkward. Perception and deception!

Because we're discussing formats. 6x7 is (usually) shot on roll film. 4x5 isn't. 4x5 also has benefits in use which are not shared with 6x7.

As far as roll film goes, one has to question what benefit 6x7 has over 6x9 or 6x6 or 6x4.5.

Stange how lots of people don't like 6x7. 6x7 is 56mm x ~70mm on most cameras, ie. 1.25:1 (and not 1.16:1 as stated in the poll). Give or take 1-2mm in width depending on system it's the same dimensions as 5x4, 8x10, 11x14 (close), 16x20, 20x24....
(And 6x17 is 56mm x 168mm: 3:1).

Well put! I think it was Linhof who branded their 6x7 backs, nominally 56 x 72 mm as "Idealformat", which translates into ideal format . Usefull for magazine covers and ads, even useful as a spread. Simply perfect as opposed to the awkward 2:3 of 35mm.

edit: just seeing that this whole topic is intensely covered here... should read the threads to the end...

At some point I took a strong dislike for the 'boxier' 6x7 and 4x5 formats and moved to 6x9 and 5x7.
Nowdays it seems that there isn't a format that I don't like; I'm even thinking of buying a Fuji 6x8 Rangefinder.
And I've always lked 6x6.

Yeah, you left out 16:9 (1.78:1) as well. But that's OK, I wouldn't have clicked on it anyway, since I really like 16:9. I also like some of the cinematic wide screen formats, like 2.35:1 (Cinemascope); 2.21:1 (70mm Panavision); or 1.85:1 (VistaVision). And I at times crop to emulate those.

Actually, I'm not a fan of the square format. I use a Hasselblad, but I almost always crop to a non-square shape. OK, I'll click on "other."

It's strange the way so many hate 6x7!
I had a Pentax 6x7 for many. many years!
That doesn't mean used and exposed film.
It was heavy, getting heavier with each footstep.
One cannot make a single paper contact sheet.!
Same goes for filing negs! Next was processing.
Finding a lab that could and would print this format.
When i could not really see difference in color prints 8x12"
that was the final straw. Big prints, sure! Wonderful.
I sold it to get my M6TTL. I love a small camera.
More film exposed in a few months than 25 years with Fat Albert.
Maybe "Ko-Fe" is dead right! Plowing with a fat pig.
However it the Pentax was a great camera, perhaps simply too big for me.

But 35mm often does seem a little more oblong than I prefer. I started photography with square format cameras and find I really love making square photos still.

My standard in 35mm format photography for many years was enlargement and crop to 11x14 inch prints, which is never-you-mind close to 4:3 format (the closest match to standard US Letter size paper, FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds digital cameras, 6x7 format, and the pre-wide-screen standard for computer displays). I've had a couple of 6x7 cameras but only rarely used the full 6x7 format; and I've had a couple of 6x9 cameras and even less frequently used their full format.

I used FourThirds format digital for a long while because it is relatively low loss to crop to 3:2 or 1:1. Since I moved to FF 35mm format digital cameras, I find myself cropping square still (since that now nets me a 16 Mpixel image, I can tolerate the losses) or 16:10 (the now-almost-standard wide-screen computer display format, and just about equal loss to 1:1 crop). I am very likely to buy a Hasselblad X1D or CFV-50c at some point in the future, which are also 4:3 format (44x33mm sensor). With 50 Mpixel total to work with, cropping to 1:1 or 3:2 or 16:10 will be no sweat at all.

In film, I still prefer 120 film cameras with 6x6cm negative format. I doubt that will ever change.

It's strange the way so many hate 6x7!
I had a Pentax 6x7 for many. many years!
That doesn't mean used and exposed film.
It was heavy, getting heavier with each footstep.
One cannot make a single paper contact sheet.!
Same goes for filing negs! Next was processing.
Finding a lab that could and would print this format.
When i could not really see difference in color prints 8x12"
that was the final straw. Big prints, sure! Wonderful.
I sold it to get my M6TTL. I love a small camera.
More film exposed in a few months than 25 years with Fat Albert.
Maybe "Ko-Fe" is dead right! Plowing with a fat pig.
However it the Pentax was a great camera, perhaps simply too big for me.

The Pentax 67 is a little like a blue blazer: you need three of each. With the blazer, you need to have one to wear, one at the cleaners, and one in the closet. With the Pentax 67, you need one to shoot with; one in repair; and a third one as a spare for when the current shooter breaks.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.